Patrick J. Overman v. Estate of Shirley Ann Overman, William Scott Overman, the Stuart G. Kelly (mem. dec.), 27A05-1510-EU-1561

Patrick J. Overman executed three promissory notes to Stuart G. Kelly between 2010–2011 for amounts shown on the notes of $50,000, $15,000, and $24,000 (parties agree actual loan amounts were smaller).
Note 3 made the notes mature upon the earlier of (a) Overman’s receipt of escrowed royalties from a separate Texas lawsuit or (b) distribution of Shirley Overman’s estate; the notes also required written default notice and a ten‑day cure period.
Kelly filed a separate debt action seeking payment before the notes had matured; Overman defended that the notes were not due and that Kelly failed to give required default notice.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Overman in the debt case, ordered escrowed funds paid to Kelly as a credit, and awarded Overman attorney fees; later, in the Estate Case the court concluded that after applying escrow Overman still owed $49,785.84 and ordered the Estate to pay that amount from Overman’s share.
Overman appealed the Estate Court judgment, but filed his Notice of Appeal 36 days after the final judgment was noted in the Chronological Case Summary; the appeal court considered whether the late filing forfeited appellate rights and whether there were extraordinarily compelling reasons to restore them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Overman forfeited his right to appeal by failing to file a timely notice of appeal	Overman did not timely appeal because of attorney-related delay but asserted attempts to notify counsel and submitted emails requesting appeal	Kelly argued Overman forfeited his right to appeal under Appellate Rule 9(A) because the Notice of Appeal was filed after the 30‑day deadline	Held: Overman forfeited the right to appeal; his Notice of Appeal was untimely and forfeiture applies
Whether extraordinarily compelling reasons justify restoring the forfeited right to appeal	Overman argued his communications to counsel showed intent and justified relief	Kelly argued no extraordinary circumstances exist to excuse the untimely filing	Held: No; the court declined to restore the right because this case lacks fundamental liberty interests and Overman’s communications did not give constructive notice to the court
Whether trial court erred on contract merits (breach/interest calculation)	Overman argued Kelly materially breached by filing before maturity, barring recovery, and contested interest calculation	Kelly preserved these merits but relied primarily on procedural forfeiture	Held: Court did not address merits because appeal was dismissed as forfeited

Ream v. Yankee Park Homeowner’s Ass’n, 915 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (party first guilty of material breach may be barred from recovery)
Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (extraordinarily compelling reasons can justify restoring forfeited appeal rights; parental liberty interest example)
City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (trial court speaks through its chronological case summary/docket entries)
Cotton v. State, 658 N.E.2d 898 (Ind. 1995) (nunc pro tunc entries record or supplement earlier record entries and take effect as of the earlier date)